Windows GUI setup stage--------------------------------------------Changes - In all repacks:*Timebomb in all repacks will be pre-disarmed / removed.*Fixed Winlogon.exe*SATA/RAID F6 (TXT Mode) drivers will be included for better experience and easy testing.Update: There will be no drivers in every build.~maybe unattended (serial included) installation (this is not for sure)--------------------------------------------If you have any other build on mind for repacking, or some suggestion please replay!

Download links will be available later today. Upload for build 4051 and 4074 in progress...

Last edited by maxtorix on Sun Feb 19, 2012 7:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.

It's Longhorn minus some Longhorn, it's just as bad as the whole "let's install XP service packs on Longhorn" thing. The WIM Format is much more flexible anyway. You just seem to be lacking the ability to work with it.

It's Longhorn minus some Longhorn, it's just as bad as the whole "let's install XP service packs on Longhorn" thing. The WIM Format is much more flexible anyway. You just seem to be lacking the ability to work with it.

Don't understand what are the advantages of WIM. Only graphic beauties? I386 form is better in my opinion. Especially for Longhorn, where new setup doesn't always work properly. Also, in XP Setup we can point much more settings than in NT6.x Setup.

Thanks, Maxtorix. But i don't understand driver integration. We can install them themselves.

It's Longhorn minus some Longhorn, it's just as bad as the whole "let's install XP service packs on Longhorn" thing. The WIM Format is much more flexible anyway. You just seem to be lacking the ability to work with it.

Don't understand what are the advantages of WIM. Only graphic beauties? I386 form is better in my opinion. Especially for Longhorn, where new setup doesn't always work properly. Also, in XP Setup we can point much more settings than in NT6.x Setup.

Best not to comment on things you're so openly ignorant about.

The WIM setup marks a complete departure from the i386 method - whereas the i386 installer slowly pieces together your install using individual files and INFs (and the like) to determine registry entries, the WIM setup uses an image of an existing installation and simply copies it to the target PC. This is preferable for two main reasons:

Quicker. Copying a single image takes far less time than individually locating files and piecing it all together.

Simpler. This was the main reason i386 was dropped in the first place - having say, the .NET Frameworks included in the i386 install is much more effort than simply installing it on the reference machine and taking an image. Similarly, it's a piece of cake to completely customise a WIM install - if you can do it in-place on a real PC, it can be done for a WIM image.

Indeed, the very modifications this lot is trying to cobble together are actually easier to implement in a WIM setup.

Admittedly, the earlier longhorn revisions were a little buggy in their setup - hence why some had difficulty formatting hard drives. Ultimately though, when you get it nailed down right, it's much better to experience a WIM install than the miserable i386s you lot seem intent on screwing around with.

It's really not too complex. Incompetence is hardly the most convincing reason to begin a crusade against WIMs. It's much simpler to add a SATA driver to a WIM install than to port an entire WIM install to i386.

[*]Quicker. Copying a single image takes far less time than individually locating files and piecing it all together.

Nope, it depends on computer. It takes more time on my older computer. You've forgotten that the image must be extracted.

hounsell wrote:

[*]Simpler. This was the main reason i386 was dropped in the first place - having say, the .NET Frameworks included in the i386 install is much more effort than simply installing it on the reference machine and taking an image. Similarly, it's a piece of cake to completely customise a WIM install - if you can do it in-place on a real PC, it can be done for a WIM image.

Installing on reference machine and then packing will include more waste such as temp files, etc?

hounsell wrote:

It's really not too complex. Incompetence is hardly the most convincing reason to begin a crusade against WIMs. It's much simpler to add a SATA driver to a WIM install than to port an entire WIM install to i386.

[*]Quicker. Copying a single image takes far less time than individually locating files and piecing it all together.

Nope, it depends on computer. It takes more time on my older computer. You've forgotten that the image must be extracted.

hounsell wrote:

[*]Simpler. This was the main reason i386 was dropped in the first place - having say, the .NET Frameworks included in the i386 install is much more effort than simply installing it on the reference machine and taking an image. Similarly, it's a piece of cake to completely customise a WIM install - if you can do it in-place on a real PC, it can be done for a WIM image.

Installing on reference machine and then packing will include more waste such as temp files, etc?

hounsell wrote:

It's really not too complex. Incompetence is hardly the most convincing reason to begin a crusade against WIMs. It's much simpler to add a SATA driver to a WIM install than to port an entire WIM install to i386.

Maybe you should instruct so 'incompetent' users as i and Pwned are.

1) In this case, he does. You should admit people know better for once.2) It's actually quicker with it being a compressed file-level image, so long as you are not using your mother's old Pentium II.3) Ever heard of removing any crap? I have and you can do it with a simple batch script!4) Maybe you incompetent users should use google instead of assuming you know best.

1) In this case, he does. You should admit people know better for once.2) It's actually quicker with it being a compressed file-level image, so long as you are not using your mother's old Pentium II.3) Ever heard of removing any crap? I have and you can do it with a simple batch script!4) Maybe you incompetent users should use google instead of assuming you know best.

1. That question was addressed to hounsell, not to soulman.2. Guy, my first computer was Pentium I. Lets speak about facts. Use timer, install twice (I386 and WIM)3. Why do we have to clean waste if we can do a clean integrating?4. If you say something, prove that, no redirects.

By the way, Longhorn Reloaded SE uses I386 Setup.

_________________Long Live Windows XP!

Last edited by Coppermine on Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.

1) In this case, he does. You should admit people know better for once.2) It's actually quicker with it being a compressed file-level image, so long as you are not using your mother's old Pentium II.3) Ever heard of removing any crap? I have and you can do it with a simple batch script!4) Maybe you incompetent users should use google instead of assuming you know best.

1. That question was addressed to hounsell, not to soulman.2. Guy, my first computer was Pentium I. Lets speak about facts. Use timer, install twice (I386 and WIM)3. Why do we have to clean waste if we can do a clean integrating?4. If you say something, prove that, no redirects.

1) Fortunately, we all find that quite obvious.2) And? This has no relevance to my point.3) Because WIMs are much more versatile and efficient. Just look how much easier it is to do everything like PXE booting for example and creating images of disks.4) Or you could just educate yourself before diving headfirst in to a conversation.

giantsteen wrote:

It's a lot easier if it was done automatically though, and files could be edited (such as the registry, and dll files, etc) which can be packed easily without needing a WIM.

Only people like you who fail to grasp the concept of WIMs would say that.